red-light cameras
Research Shows Red-Light Cameras Work
By Larry Copeland
USA Today
(Feb. 15) - Surveillance cameras at major intersections dramatically reduce the number of drivers who barrel through red lights, two new research reports say.
The findings come as debate about the controversial devices continues a decade after they were introduced. The battles include a proposal to ban the cameras here in Georgia, litigation in at least three states and legislative efforts to permit them in six other states.
The cameras automatically photograph vehicles that drive into intersections after the light turns red. Vehicle owners are then mailed citations instructing them to pay a fine or sign an affidavit that they weren't driving at the time.
More than 850 people die and and about 170,000 are injured each year in crashes caused by drivers running red lights, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration says.
Researchers studied the effectiveness of red light cameras in Philadelphia and Virginia Beach.
The Philadelphia study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry group, examined red light violations using a two-step approach. First, researchers found that violations dropped by 36% after yellow lights were extended to give drivers more warning that the light was about to turn red. After red light cameras were added, remaining violations dropped by 96%.
"There's a dramatic change in driver behavior when red light cameras are used," says Richard Retting, senior transportation safety engineer for IIHS. "The jury is in on that question."
"That's a huge jump," says lead researcher Bryan Porter, an associate professor of psychology at Old Dominion. "The rate of red light running was actually higher" than before the cameras were installed.
The popularity of the cameras is growing rapidly despite oppostion that centers on constitutional grounds. About 250 communities around the USA use the devices, according to the Insurance Institute. Just 10 years ago, only New York and San Francisco had them.
Opponents say the cameras deny drivers their right to confront their accusers in court and are a ploy by local governments to raise revenue.
"There is a lot of money to be made with them," says Howard Bass, a Minnesota attorney who successfully challenged Minneapolis' red-light camera system in a case that will be argued before the state Supreme Court next month. "Ultimately, this is an issue that may have to be decided in the court of public opinion rather than courts of law. It's a public policy issue of how much surveillance creep we will tolerate in the 21st century."
______________________________________________________________________
Anyone who has ever driven in Europe knows all about cameras posted at busy intersections and dangerous curves. They work. You never know when a mobil camera could be set up around a blind curve, drivers are much more attentive to speed limits, even in country areas. Sure wish we had them here.
By Larry Copeland
USA Today
(Feb. 15) - Surveillance cameras at major intersections dramatically reduce the number of drivers who barrel through red lights, two new research reports say.
The findings come as debate about the controversial devices continues a decade after they were introduced. The battles include a proposal to ban the cameras here in Georgia, litigation in at least three states and legislative efforts to permit them in six other states.
The cameras automatically photograph vehicles that drive into intersections after the light turns red. Vehicle owners are then mailed citations instructing them to pay a fine or sign an affidavit that they weren't driving at the time.
More than 850 people die and and about 170,000 are injured each year in crashes caused by drivers running red lights, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration says.
Researchers studied the effectiveness of red light cameras in Philadelphia and Virginia Beach.
The Philadelphia study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry group, examined red light violations using a two-step approach. First, researchers found that violations dropped by 36% after yellow lights were extended to give drivers more warning that the light was about to turn red. After red light cameras were added, remaining violations dropped by 96%.
"There's a dramatic change in driver behavior when red light cameras are used," says Richard Retting, senior transportation safety engineer for IIHS. "The jury is in on that question."
"That's a huge jump," says lead researcher Bryan Porter, an associate professor of psychology at Old Dominion. "The rate of red light running was actually higher" than before the cameras were installed.
The popularity of the cameras is growing rapidly despite oppostion that centers on constitutional grounds. About 250 communities around the USA use the devices, according to the Insurance Institute. Just 10 years ago, only New York and San Francisco had them.
Opponents say the cameras deny drivers their right to confront their accusers in court and are a ploy by local governments to raise revenue.
"There is a lot of money to be made with them," says Howard Bass, a Minnesota attorney who successfully challenged Minneapolis' red-light camera system in a case that will be argued before the state Supreme Court next month. "Ultimately, this is an issue that may have to be decided in the court of public opinion rather than courts of law. It's a public policy issue of how much surveillance creep we will tolerate in the 21st century."
______________________________________________________________________
Anyone who has ever driven in Europe knows all about cameras posted at busy intersections and dangerous curves. They work. You never know when a mobil camera could be set up around a blind curve, drivers are much more attentive to speed limits, even in country areas. Sure wish we had them here.
0
-
If you think that road cameras are a good thing, then at least the second part of your name is correct..........
Merc0 -
Obviously Merc, you have never lived on a country blacktop where the posted speed is 40 and the unofficial speed is 70. Makes it a little tough to take hay to the livestock when one has to dodge idiots. What are you afraid of, that the Feds will find out your business? Can't see how a camera that checks down the driving habits of dumb-a**es can be a threat to your personal freedom. Guess you don't go to the mall either then, you know --security cameras[B)] 0 -
quote:It's a public policy issue of how much surveillance creep we will tolerate in the 21st century.how about all those other cameras all over already, that aren't anywhere near a red light?? on ramps, off ramps, along the interstate, in my neighborhood there's even a rather large conspicuous one in a neighborhood intersection that only has a stop sign.
you know, once I read a quote from a cheif of police, he said "we'll try to get away with as much as the public will tolerate" it seems like that's the way they all think. that's b.s.0 -
Don't know that Cornflk1 really supports them, think he might have just posted the article.
Sorry Merc., I stand corrected. You were right.
quote:.........and are a ploy by local governments to raise revenue.
This is exactly what they are for.0 -
red-light cameras are a revenue generator and potentially a danger generator.
Very often the camera is mis-set, either accidentally or on purpose to go off while the light is still yellow. Obviously this will make drivers more prone to perform a risky stop (full blast on the brakes) rather than trying to run though the yellow.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather not get buttf***ed by the car behind me, or lose a fragile cargo due to excessive negative-Gs.0 -
The Aty General of Michigan (Mike Cox) has declared the red light and traffic cameras to be illegal in the state of Michigan. 0 -
the red light cameras dont bother me near as much as the new speeding cameras alot of places are installing,little radar in a box on the side of the road takes your speed,camera snaps your lic plate then they mail the owner of the car a ticket.does not matter who was driving ,the owner has to pay the fine or they pull your lic plates from the car. 0 -
...the cameras HAVE increased rear end collisions at red lights. What ever happened to the right to confront your accusser?(constitutional right)...I don't like 'em...[xx(] 
0 -
I love how people cry and moan about these cameras... they're actually a beneficial device, but people feel its infringing on their "freedom." Their freedom to what? Break the law?
And its not like these cameras are going to be isntalled at every intersection - that would be impossible. Only the high-risk intersections where people should be more cautious. It makes sense.0 -
I'm no fan of big gov't, but I vote yes for redlight cameras. Here in NOVA we had them for awhile, and they really cut down on redlight running. Before them you'd regularly see people running the intersection two and three seconds after it was red. The camera only took a car's picture when it entered the intersection 1 second AFTER the light turned red. In other words, you had to be darn guilty to get your picture taken.
They're a necessary evil, and there are even signs 100 yards before the intersection that tell drivers they're cameras ahead. If you're so dumb you can't read and so dangerous that you run a solid red, then you can darn well cough up $50.0 -
...no, it IS infringeing on your constitutional right...going to confront a camera are you?...[;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Cornflk1
Obviously Merc, you have never lived on a country blacktop where the posted speed is 40 and the unofficial speed is 70. Makes it a little tough to take hay to the livestock when one has to dodge idiots. What are you afraid of, that the Feds will find out your business? Can't see how a camera that checks down the driving habits of dumb-a**es can be a threat to your personal freedom. Guess you don't go to the mall either then, you know --security cameras[B)]
Actually it does.
I have no problems with LEOs who want to (sorry Nunn and others) sit in their cars with radar guns (and I'm not going to continue this sentence because I don't know how to without being completely offensive)...
But, using a camera to do a LEOs work in the field is just wrong. There can be many reasons for going through the red light, not limited to the fact that the light won't change because it is malfunctioning or it is short-cycling, and there is no way to get through the intersection without violating the law (and, it happens at least once a week on the street I live on).
On our street, for instance, we have an ambulance that hangs out closeby due to the sheer number of accidents at the next major intersection. They use one of those traffic-light overrides to change the light. Each time they do that, the lights seem to go into a short-cycle until someone comes out to fix it.
And, often, it can be days before that's fixed, because the road I'm talking about is the border between two counties, and they're always fighting between each other as to who is responsible for the maintenance of that road. They've been doing it for years, and each time we complain, each county tells us we're calling the wrong county.
At least with a LEO, you've got a fighting chance for intelligent reasoning prior to writing the ticket. It is as simple as saying, "Watch the next light cycle." With a camera, you don't have that intelligent reasoning. You have a ticket mailed to you, and you then get to plead your case to the judge months after the offense.
I'm all for making the roads safer, but I don't like automated systems doing the job. Humans make errors, but humans are also reasonable (in most cases).0 -
I'm against them.
We are watched enough already. People who blast down country roads at unreasonable speeds will eventually be weeded out by Mother Nature.0 -
Flake,
I grew up on a dirt road that was the ONLY link between two blacktopped state roads. I know ALL ABOUT idiots flying down the roads at 70 mph.
Your argument doesn't work though. You can't stop idiots with a camera!
If they are going to speed, they are going to speed. Just like passing a gun law doesn't stop criminals!
These traffic lights cameras have NOTHING to do with safety, and EVERYTHING to do with revenue generation. If the local authorities REALLY wanted to do something about the "safety" end of things, they'd just seize people's cars, and be done with it. It is all about the money.
Do you know what "slippery slope" is? Ask someone in England, who was happy they outlawed handguns years ago.......now they can't even own butcher knives!
Merc0 -
On Mercury's 'Slippery Slope' comment, this is a good article about it.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/CameraState.shtml0 -
quote:Originally posted by meunke
On Mercury's 'Slippery Slope' comment, this is a good article about it.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/CameraState.shtml
I disagree. That's not a good article, that's a great article.
Thanks for posting!0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
the red light cameras dont bother me near as much as the new speeding cameras alot of places are installing,little radar in a box on the side of the road takes your speed,camera snaps your lic plate then they mail the owner of the car a ticket.does not matter who was driving ,the owner has to pay the fine or they pull your lic plates from the car.
not legal, or more accurately, wont hold up in court. charging a person without proof of identity. come on.....0 -
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
the red light cameras dont bother me near as much as the new speeding cameras alot of places are installing,little radar in a box on the side of the road takes your speed,camera snaps your lic plate then they mail the owner of the car a ticket.does not matter who was driving ,the owner has to pay the fine or they pull your lic plates from the car.
not legal, or more accurately, wont hold up in court. charging a person without proof of identity. come on.....
In Colorado, the cameras get your plate and a picture of the driver. At least, that's what the speed cameras do (I have no clue if the red light cameras do, too).0 -
quote:Originally posted by meunke
On Mercury's 'Slippery Slope' comment, this is a good article about it.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/CameraState.shtml
At any rate, there are other twisted, brain-fried wackos out there who have too much time on their hands and read this stuff, probably while cleaning their guns.
I don't particularly like his tone, with this statement. Good article, though.0 -
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
the red light cameras dont bother me near as much as the new speeding cameras alot of places are installing,little radar in a box on the side of the road takes your speed,camera snaps your lic plate then they mail the owner of the car a ticket.does not matter who was driving ,the owner has to pay the fine or they pull your lic plates from the car.
not legal, or more accurately, wont hold up in court. charging a person without proof of identity. come on.....
First off, let me say that I am opposed to photo radar and red light cameras on a philosophical basis. As to the above point, here is how it is generally done.
Camera takes the shot of the vehicle, driver and plate. Most agencies contract out all, or portions of this process. The vender mates the driver photo, vehicle registration information on the owner ect, and runs through MVD for registered owner description. If the R/O is a white male in his 20's and the photo matches a white male in his 20's, the vendor generates a citation/pending citation and posts it on a secure server. A designated sworn officer at the agency accesses the secure server daily and reviews each potential violation. If the officer verifies the D.L. photo and vehicle registration as matching the violation photo, the officer accepts it and it returns to the vendor to generate a citation and to mail the citation out, with the accepting/verifying officers electronic signature. The registered owner can either pay the ticket, go to court, or sign an affidavit, usually on the rear of the e-cite, testifying that he she was not driving and is not responsible. it can go on from there.0 -
there is a product on the market that will help or at least give you a chance to maybe tip the odds in your favor, doesnt cover the plate at all, just makes the picture very hard to ID all the correct symbols included in the plate. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by big mango
there is a product on the market that will help or at least give you a chance to maybe tip the odds in your favor, doesnt cover the plate at all, just makes the picture very hard to ID all the correct symbols included in the plate.
Heh! Heh! Heh! And I have acquired that product and sprayed my Harley Plate, My XK-8 plates and my Lexus Plates. You put on four coats and the camera gets a blind plate out of focus. But the plate looks and feels totally normal. We will see how it holds up when and if I ever accidently run a light or get hit with the photo radar.0 -
well thats no longer a well kept secret is it NOW 0 -
quote:Originally posted by big mango
well thats no longer a well kept secret is it NOW
It has been advertised in all the car mags for years and was the centerpiece of several primetime TV shows a few years back. They give you the CD with the purchase showing the evidence that it was tested by the TV crew and works like a charm.0 -
mental note: when driving in areas with known camera surveilance, wear black face makeup, a wig, large glasses and a rubber nose 0 -
sig232:
Just pokin' you with a stick , bud. Guess it worked !0 -
Albuquerque is in the throes of speed-sensing and red-light cameras being installed on almost every major street, and the Mayor has already explained that it's not a criminal penalty (thus avoiding a court challenge); it's an "administrative fee" of $100 for the red lights and $150 for speeding (first offense).
The city has set up a kangaroo court at which one could (ostensibly) get an appeal heard, yet out of over 14,000 "fees" collected; no one has ever argued successfully that there were extenuating circumstances.
The new favorite trick is to slow down as one turns left so as to cause the car behind to be caught by the cameras.
Several rear-enders have occurred due to the cameras, yet only 4 deaths can be attributed to them.
They are the worst form of Communism as they are currently being used; generating cash for fatcat politicos with dreams of more elections.
Even with the recent snowfall and subsequent wrecks and icy roads, the cameras are still considered infallible as "silent witnesses" to un-administrative activities.
The mayor has also announced that LEOs are subject to the same cameras, simply because he was caught weaving and speeding one weekend.0 -
bust out the cans of skatin' away plate spray for all the good citizens of Albuquerque, NM. They might need it. 0 -
LMAO thats funny Kev , BOINK BOINK
They have the cameras here is the Houston area now, the tickets are a civil matter. Mutilple photos are taken, there are processes in place to dispute the ticket. I try to keep my vehicles away from the areas that have the cameras, personally I think they are BULLSpoop0 -
In England (and other parts of Europe), there are plenty of speed cams - if you get caught, you get the violation/fine notice automatically via mail, along with your picture(s) -- very expensive.
You have not seen surveillance cameras until you have been to London. Personally, I like them and see no problem with it. When utilized accordingly, it keeps honest people honest, and law abiding citizen ... well, ... law abiding [:p][}:)]! If you are neither or just paranoid that you are being watched over, I guess you should be against them [V].0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
43 comments